[OSM-talk] Walking Routes - wiki needs some work?

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Fri Feb 20 17:00:20 GMT 2009


The whole question of relation:type=route is a bit confused both in the wiki
and in practice - with the inevitable result that I am probably not the only
one who has adopted my own compromise conventions! For me, the most
important thing is that we extend, so far as is reasonably possible, the
concept of using a relation for a route! This gets around the multiple
problems associated with a walker tagging a way as a footway and a cyclist
tagging the same way as a cycleway and a rider tagging it as a bridleway!
Let's at least agree to use relations for routes and keep the use of tags as
a means of describing which means of transport are either physically capable
of using, or legally allowed to use, a particular way. No information is
lost by adopting this principle - and it allows much more description of a
way so that it can be rendered either on the general map or on specialist
maps for walkers, cyclists, etc.

The question of route network type is indeed just as confused, as Robert
points out. Personally, I would deprecate uk_ldp (what's so special about
the UK??) and stick to the internationalised convention of iwn/nwn/rwn/lwn.
Using both systems is doubly confusing, as it is all too easy to think that
the 'L' ins uk_ldp means 'local' (i.e. not long distance!) or the 'l' in lwn
means 'long distance'! I would prefer to avoid, where possible, ending up
with a tagging convention that was peculiar to the UK - although the nature
of English public rights of way law - being internationally unique - does
suggest the need for some specialised tagging. We already have the problem
that the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_public_rights_of_way suggests,
for example, foot=yes for a 'UK' (should really be England and Wales) public
footpath  - and I have followed this - but shouldn't it really be
foot=designated? With foot=yes left to describe what 'can' be done rather
than what 'may' (legally) be done?

The next issue is how to define iwn/nwn/rwn/lwn - although I suspect that a
fairly pragmatic approach will emerge.

A related issue is whether and when to add these routes to the listings on
the dedicated wiki pages e.g. for UK walking and cycling routes. I am adding
walking routes to
Paths but there is an obvious issue as to what to include - I am tending to
exclude 'lwn' and add the rest until someone shouts at me. So far as cycling
routes are concerned on
_Network, I have desisted from adding routes since having my wrist slapped
for adding a cycling route that was not part of the national cycle network
(which is a fair enough comment, given the name of the page even though it
includes rcn's as well as ncn's). I can see the line has to be drawn
somewhere! But is there / should there be a listing of other cycle routes

This is all a bit specialised - but it does become of increasing importance
as mappers in well-mapped areas begin to move from mapping roads to mapping
off-road ways.

How do those of you more experienced than I think it best to carry this
discussion forward?

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Vollmert [mailto:rvollmert-lists at gmx.net] 
Sent: 20 February 2009 11:25
To: Ed Loach
Cc: osm Openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Walking Routes - wiki needs some work?

On Feb 20, 2009, at 11:14, Ed Loach wrote:
> In the wiki, Relation:route[1] suggests network of uk_ldp for the UK 
> long distance path network, but Walking_Routes[2] suggests 
> iwn/nwn/rwn/lwn for network types. It looks like the uk_ldp goes back 
> over a year to October 2007, so there are probably a number of these 
> already in existence. The contradiction between the two pages has also 
> led to a relation I created based on the Walking_Routes page being 
> amended to that on the Relation:Route one (which is understandable if 
> people are already used to the Relation:Route definitions).
> I don’t know how to find out how many relations already exist tagged 
> with network=uk_ldp - perhaps someone could find out? And perhaps 
> someone could decide what to do about the wiki contradictions. Also on 
> the Relation:route page the Cambridge citibus network is still 
> mentioned in the network description, but the value in the network 
> column has been removed (browsing the page history).

If you follow the tagwatch links from Relation:route, you can get at the

network	GB	Europe

uk_ldp	21	21
lwn	1	191
rwn	4	354
nwn	0	22
iwn	0	0


More information about the talk mailing list